Har du blivit länkad hit utan att läsa tidigare sektioner, gör
Även om det inte är nödvändigt
This might not appear as an issue for sustainability but in reality it is of course.
If the world: 1/ possess means to annihilate it and 2/ have leaders that are constantly recruited from the ranks of the indecent or narcissist "race"
and 3/ will be a sustainable world, there is no other means than to aspire for a world without number 1/. Because with number 2/, which essentially is
the history of mankind, we know
number 3/ will never happen.
So no matter how naive it probably is in the end, the aspiration for total disarmament is a requirement. That is not even a pacifist agenda. essentiell.org
has only the vision of a society that simply still exists in 500 years in the end, no more no less. Total disarmament, looking at it rationally and historically, is
likely one of the pillar-stones of the sustainability aspiration.
The word "implicitly" is popularly used in just about any context and it was nearly used again. As an argumentation for disarmament on a global basis the
following metaphor was intended as a start:
As a world leader, how come you implicitly choose to accept and ignore the deaths of 100 children when investing in a $19 000 000 F16 fighter Jet
(or equivalent) to add to your already 300 unit strong reservoir of fighter jets?
$19 millions is such an enormous sum that it would actually not only hinder the deaths of those 100 children due to famine, it could build a house to the
family of one of them. It would also make sure that this child could go to school up to the age of 15. It would even be able to build
not only for the one kid but build a separate school for each
of the other 99 children. And
pay for the salaries of the teachers in these
schools for 10 years. And nota-bene
, let us through in a house also for the families of the 99 children that didn't get a house, and as a total
that would only cost ¼ of that single F16 Fighter Jet.
However, not even that is the point and yes of course it matters where
in the world you chose to invest the equivalent cost of an F16.
The point that essentiell.org want to make crystal is: There are no implicit action here, you explicitly
make that choice. You could
, if you
were decent, choose not to invest in the 301:st fighter jet and to invest those money in things that are decent or at the least, not in things meant to kill
other members of mankind.
Again, the numbers are taken as qualitative estimates, but the point is duly crystal.
One objection has already been brought up and that is the almost ridiculous naivety of that reasoning. Yes duly noted, it is certainly
ridiculous in its naivety but it
is also the most decent reasoning.
Another objection is that one might ask if this is really the responsibility of someone making these decisions? The
only pipe-line of ruling
should end in the welfare of the people that are ruled by that person or regime. Why is it the responsibility of a rich(er) country to even consider
actions that helps people that firstly might even resent the livelihood/religion/culture of the donor society and secondly could be thought of as had
put themselves in the situation that they currently are in? If they are subjected to illness, no health care, no education or to a general anarchy that
could wipe his family out in a
heartbeat? Chose another regime for god sake! Or move!
A simple answer is yes, it is formally not the responsibility of any regime to look for the welfare of anyone else than its own people. Another answer
is again that it is the most decent
way to act. That is however likely not a sufficient argument.
Look at it this way then:
essentiell.org has argued in favor of the idea that we at least should consider an implication of the term L in the Drake equation. We are not stating it
as a fact, not in the least, but if
the reason behind the lack of any traces of other life than mankind, is that intelligent life that reach a level
of technological advancement does something
wrong, (that we have argued
it is not a very far fetched idea that an arms race and increase in military arsenal is not the right way to go. At least, it seem silly
to make the assumption that it is the right
The prevailing global idea is that some kind of equilibrium state of military strength will guarantee world peace. Could that be the something
we are mistaken about? Well if it is a universal axiom that intelligent life who reach a certain level of technological advancement suddenly (measured in
centuries from the starting point of that level) goes from 'radio-active' to 'radio-silent', we are at least obliged to consider where advanced
civilizations go wrong? Why take the chance that massive (however equal) military strength is the correct way? (If you have been linked to this section
and are not familliar with the concepts of 'radio-active/silent', please refer to
is of the opinion that if we remove these massive arsenals of weapons of mass-destruction, we at least eliminate the possibility that the something
is global wars annihilating the current standard of society.
Changing focus to decency again.
Is it easier to act decent if you as a citizen or leader change perspective to not your children or even your great great grand children but your offspring
that must live on this planet in 500 years? What a ruling party of any country must ask themselves is: "Does this law or decision make the foundation of the
life of my great great great great great great great granddaughter better?" "Are my decisions such that she even has the chance to be born? And if so, do my
decisions increase or decrease the risk of fulfilling the apparently universal axiom of a declining technological advanced civilization so that my far-futured
grand daughter doesn't live in a society not very different in standards from the 16:th century?"
Only hypothetically, if a world leader suddenly has an idea that a 30 feet wall between their own country and the neighboring country is a great idea today,
there should be a filter that make the same leader also consider if that wall will be beneficial for his or hers future grandchildren? Does it produce such
a constructive interface between the countries that the future and dialogue will likely be improved?
The feature of naivety has been brought up previously. The prospect of a country without a military defense would seem ridiculous to a few and at least naive
to many more. It would be assumed that this label comes from the notion that every country that is brave enough to initiate disarmament would sooner rather
than later simply be invaded and engulfed by the countries that don't.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Let us envision an invasion by another country.
First of all, as a military axiom, neither a tactical nor a strategic large scale military attack is initiated without the significant likelihood of success.
(To indulge Colonel-Major Stiffupperlip Smith at military school teaching strategy and his duly objection: yes, there could be occasions where 'loosing' is
beneficial to the overall strategy)
So skipping the military decisions that precede and follow the un-timely deaths of Mr's X,Y,Z...and Miss's A,B,C etc etc etc etc during this
invasion, we simply conclude that 34583 died in the successful invasion. 21334 deaths from the invading side and 13249 from the defending side. An additional
destruction of buildings and infrastructure for $62.7 Billions and the deaths of 47845 civilians was also added to the bill after the 3 weeks and 4 days invasion.
The invaded country does now have 15.1 million residents in contrast to 15 million 3 weeks and 4 days earlier, counting the occupational forces to 100.000.
A large fraction of the 100.000 person strong occupational force does however feel a considerable deal of hatred towards the people of the invaded country
because their best friend was killed in the invasion. This fraction of 'animosity' should be added to the normally indecent within the occupational forces whose personality
feature by itself lead to a feeling of superiority and malice. Together, they impose random killing, rapes, the destruction of homes etc whenever they have
In Addition there is a profound hate from the people of the occupied country from the many relatives to the dead of both the defending forces and the civilians
that were killed. Creating mutual, constant vendettas during the whole occupation leading to 300 more deaths of the occupational forces and 600 of the
resistance/civilians, each month
This writing is not intended as a novel so it is left to the readers to imaging the minds and day-to-day lives of people on both sides following
the hypothetical invasion.
The same invasion without any defense forces:
It was done in 1 day and 2 hours. 0 casualties on either side.Except for the destruction of 12 communication hubs or poles, 1 bridge and
small scale grazes on 3 governmental buildings, no
destruction what so ever regarding buildings and infrastructure.
A country without any
military infrastructure at all also mean that the invading country only leaves an occupational force of 10.000. Some of these are still indecent of course
and will inflict harm and indecent behavior which will affect the civilian population.
Due to the 'peaceful' occupation and simply lack of weapons in the
occupied country there are "only" a total 5 deaths related to the invasion each month.
In this scenario, the end result is essentially the same but due to the fact that the invaded country lack any type of weapons arsenal the sum of total
deaths and destroyed infrastructure is kept to a minimum. If the end result is the same, why embrace a foundation that only lead to killing, deaths,
massive destruction of infrastructure and indecency?
There is a load of 'ifs' and 'buts' in this naive simplification so it must be emphasized that if the ideals of essentiell.org have a global impact,
there doesn't even exist an invading force. Global disarmament is the goal and even the slightest skirmish wouldn't either take place or
result in a casualty number and general misery not even remotely comparable to the situation with no defence at all.
But what about the discouraging effect on any invading force when the military muscles are essentially equal? Or if both have nuclear arms? If the answer to that
is that both countries will stay put and not pursue any plans of invasion, isn't that a proof that we should
increase our armament and military expenses?
The answer is by all apparently rational means, yes.
If peace and global security is the ultimate goal we should strive for a world where all countries have an equal amount of arms preferably with nuclear weapons
in the arsenal because that seem both sensible and logical in the perspective of mutual discouragement.
The problem is indecency
and that the only time-scale we have to validate this hypothesis is 60 years. Yes, it has apparently worked
for the last 60.
However as stated in other sections, there is a growing indecency in the world and there seem to be a periodicity and
frequency of wars that likely has some correlation with the fact that indecent men (they are all men) have a tendency to occupy apex
positions in world regimes. So even though the idea of the discouraging effect of mutual military strength (or even any military arsenal
with the intent to be discouraging) seem good in theory, just look at the image that was shown on the first page which strongly suggests
that it isn't a viable idea in all practical